International Delphi Study to Develop Standardized Quality Criteria and a Rating Tool for Liver CEUS Image Quality Assessment. (ICON LiverCEUS)

June 12, 2026 updated by: University of Bern

Delphi Study on Quality Indicators for CEUS Imaging of the Liver Using SonoVue® Contrast Agent

This study aims to establish international consensus-based quality criteria for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examinations of the liver and to develop a standardized tool for assessing CEUS image quality. CEUS is an established imaging technique used in clinical practice for the characterization and assessment of focal liver lesions and other liver abnormalities. Despite its increasing use, there are currently no universally accepted or validated standards for evaluating the quality and reproducibility of CEUS examinations.

The primary objective of this project is therefore to identify robust and clinically relevant quality indicators for liver CEUS examinations through an international Delphi consensus process. The study focuses specifically on CEUS examinations performed in adult patients using the ultrasound contrast agent SonoVue®.

The project is divided into two work packages (WP). In Work Package 1 (WP1), the study team will first conduct a structured review of the available literature and discuss potential CEUS quality criteria within the research group. Based on this process, an initial catalogue of quality indicators relating to technical, procedural, and imaging characteristics relevant to liver CEUS examinations will be developed.

These proposed criteria will subsequently be evaluated through a multi-round Delphi process involving an international and interdisciplinary panel of experienced CEUS users and experts. A minimum of 20 panellists will participate across all Delphi rounds. Participants will rate their level of agreement with each proposed quality criterion using a 7-point Likert scale and may suggest additional criteria where appropriate. Newly proposed criteria supported by more than 10% of participants will be included in subsequent Delphi rounds.

During each round, panellists will receive anonymised feedback summarising the responses of the group and will be invited to re-evaluate the relevance of the proposed criteria. This iterative process will continue for at least three rounds or until predefined consensus criteria are achieved. Consensus will be defined as at least 70% agreement with a rating of 6 or higher on the Likert scale.

In Work Package 2 (WP2), the consensus-based quality criteria identified in WP1 will be operationalised into a comprehensive and standardized rating scale for CEUS image quality assessment. Individual criteria will be grouped into broader domains and transformed into practical assessment items and prompts. The resulting rating tool will then be circulated among all Delphi panel members for final review and feedback to ensure clarity, applicability, and international usability.

The overall goal of this study is to improve standardization, quality assurance, and reproducibility in liver CEUS examinations. The developed consensus criteria and rating scale may support clinical practice, future research studies, multicentre collaborations, and educational initiatives by enabling more consistent evaluation of CEUS image quality across institutions and countries.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Detailed Description

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an established and widely used imaging modality for the evaluation of focal liver lesions and other hepatic abnormalities. It plays an increasingly important role in clinical diagnostics due to its real-time imaging capability, safety profile, and broad availability. Despite its clinical relevance, there is currently no internationally standardised definition of adequate CEUS image quality, and no validated criteria exist for its objective assessment. As a result, interpretation and perceived diagnostic quality of CEUS examinations may vary considerably between operators, institutions, and healthcare systems.

The aim of this study is to develop internationally agreed, consensus-based quality criteria for adequate CEUS image quality in liver examinations and to translate these criteria into a standardised rating tool. The overall objective is to improve the reproducibility, comparability, and standardisation of CEUS examinations in both clinical practice and research settings.

To achieve this, the study is structured into two work packages (WP). Work Package 1 (WP1) focuses on identifying and refining relevant quality criteria for CEUS of the adult liver through an international Delphi consensus process.

Work Package 2 (WP2) focuses on clustering the agreed criteria into overarching domains and developing a structured rating scale for practical application.

In WP1, a preliminary set of potential quality indicators will be generated based on a structured literature review and expert discussion within the study team. These indicators will reflect technical, procedural, and image-related aspects of liver CEUS examinations. The most commonly applied CEUS context, adult liver imaging, will serve as the clinical focus of the study. An international panel of CEUS experts will be recruited based on defined expertise criteria, including extensive clinical experience in ultrasound and CEUS, training involvement, and scientific contribution to the field. Approximately 35 experts will be invited to participate in the first Delphi round, with an expected final panel size of at least 20 participants across all rounds.

The Delphi process will consist of three iterative survey rounds. In each round, participants will rate their agreement with predefined statements describing potential quality criteria using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "completely disagree" to "completely agree," with an additional option for "outside of my expertise." Participants may also suggest additional criteria in the first round. Free-text responses will be systematically analysed, categorised, and included in subsequent rounds if supported by at least 10% of participants.

After each round, anonymised aggregated feedback will be provided to participants, including summary statistics such as median scores, interquartile ranges, and agreement rates. Participants will then be asked to reconsider and, if appropriate, revise their ratings in light of group responses. Consensus will be defined a priori as at least 70% of panellists rating a criterion as "agree" or "completely agree." Criteria not reaching consensus after repeated rounds will be revised or excluded according to predefined rules.

WP2 will translate the final consensus-based criteria into a structured rating scale for assessing CEUS image quality. The agreed criteria will be organised into overarching domains reflecting key dimensions of image quality. Within each domain, individual criteria will serve as structured prompts to guide evaluation. The resulting scale will be designed to be practical and reproducible and will use a simplified scoring system for domain-level assessment. Depending on the Delphi findings, non-imaging or technical aspects may be included as a separate domain.

The draft rating scale will be reviewed by the Delphi panel participants who completed all rounds. They will be asked to evaluate agreement with each domain and with the overall structure of the scale using a structured binary response format, with optional qualitative feedback. If predefined acceptance thresholds are not met, an additional revision round will be conducted.

Data analysis will include descriptive statistics for each criterion, including median and interquartile range, as well as calculation of agreement proportions. Responses indicating "outside of my expertise" will be treated as missing data and excluded from statistical calculations. Criteria will be evaluated against predefined consensus thresholds to determine inclusion, revision, or exclusion across Delphi rounds.

The final outcome of this study will be an internationally derived consensus set of quality criteria for liver CEUS examinations and a structured, standardised rating tool for assessing CEUS image quality. This framework is intended to support improved quality assurance, enhance reproducibility, and facilitate harmonisation of CEUS practice across institutions and countries in both clinical and research contexts.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
35

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Contact Backup

  • Name: Fabian M Föhrenbacher, MD
  • Phone Number: +41 78 313 77 08
  • Email: fabi.foehri@web.de

Study Locations

  • Switzerland
      • Bern, Switzerland, 3007
        • Recruiting
        • University of Bern
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Robin Walther, MD
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Michael Harris, MD et MME
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Christoph Dietrich, MD et Prof.
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Fabian Föhrenbacher, MD

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child
  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

The study population consists of internationally recognised CEUS experts from radiology and internal medicine with extensive clinical and scientific experience in ultrasound diagnostics. Participants are recruited from multiple countries to form an interdisciplinary expert panel.

Inclusion requires expertise comparable to DEGUM Level III, including substantial ultrasound experience, regular performance of CEUS examinations, and involvement in CEUS training and/or research.

Approximately 35 experts will be invited for the first Delphi round, with at least 20 expected to complete all rounds. The purposive sampling approach ensures a highly specialised panel aimed at achieving expert consensus rather than statistical representativeness.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • At least 6 years of active experience in ultrasound diagnostics in internal medicine, radiology, or a related clinical field
  • Independent performance of at least 5,000 ultrasound examinations Participation in structured CEUS training
  • Performance of at least 800 ultrasound examinations per year in routine clinical practice
  • Either: at least 100 independently performed CEUS examinations per year or more than 700 CEUS examinations in total
  • Regular participation in ultrasound-related meetings, case reviews, or quality assurance activities within their institution
  • Scientific involvement in CEUS, demonstrated by at least one peer-reviewed publication and/or active engagement in CEUS education or training
  • Signing the consent form of the participants

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Failure to meet the inclusion criteria

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
How many proposed contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) quality criteria achieve expert consensus, defined as ≥70% of panellists assigning a score of 6 ("agree") or 7 ("completely agree") on a 7-point Delphi Likert scale, by the end of Round 3?
Time Frame: Completion of Delphi Round 3 (within six months)

The number of proposed CEUS quality criteria that achieve predefined consensus after completion of the Delphi process. Consensus is defined as ≥70% of participating experts assigning a score of 6 ("agree") or 7 ("completely agree") on a 7-point Likert scale evaluating the statement: "This criterion indicates adequate quality of a CEUS examination."

The rating is based on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement that the criterion reflects adequate CEUS image quality.
Completion of Delphi Round 3 (within six months)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
What percentage of experts assigns a score of 6 or 7 on the 7-point Delphi Likert scale to each proposed CEUS quality criterion across the Delphi rounds?
Time Frame: After each Delphi round (within six months)

For each proposed quality criterion, the percentage of participating experts assigning a rating of 6 ("agree") or 7 ("completely agree") on the 7-point Likert scale will be calculated and reported.

The rating is based on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement that the criterion reflects adequate CEUS image quality.
After each Delphi round (within six months)
What are the median ratings for each proposed CEUS quality criterion on the 7-point Delphi Likert scale across the Delphi rounds?
Time Frame: After each Delphi round (within six months)

Median expert rating for each proposed CEUS quality criterion. Responses marked as "Outside of my expertise" will be excluded from calculation.

The rating is based on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement that the criterion reflects adequate CEUS image quality.
After each Delphi round (within six months)
What are the interquartile ranges (IQRs) of expert ratings for each proposed CEUS quality criterion on the 7-point Delphi Likert scale across the Delphi rounds?
Time Frame: After each Delphi round (within six months)

Interquartile range (IQR) of expert ratings for each proposed CEUS quality criterion. Lower IQR values indicate greater agreement among panellists.

The rating is based on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement that the criterion reflects adequate CEUS image quality.
After each Delphi round (within six months)
How many quality domains are incorporated into the final CEUS image quality rating scale derived from the consensus-based criteria?
Time Frame: Following completion of Work Package 2 (within six months)
Total number of domains derived from consensus-based CEUS quality criteria and incorporated into the final rating scale developed in Work Package 2.
Following completion of Work Package 2 (within six months)
What percentage of Experts Approving the Final Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Image Quality Rating Scale Using Binary Agreement Responses?
Time Frame: Final rating scale evaluation survey (within six months)

Percentage of Delphi panellists who completed all Delphi rounds and respond "Yes" to the question: "Do you agree this rating scale covers the important aspects to rate adequate CEUS image quality?"

The survey is conducted using a binary response scale (Yes/No). Higher percentages indicate greater acceptance of the final rating scale.
Final rating scale evaluation survey (within six months)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
University of Bern

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Study Chair: Robin Walter, University of Bern

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
June 1, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
September 30, 2026

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
September 30, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
May 20, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 12, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
June 18, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
June 18, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 12, 2026

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
May 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • Delphi on CEUS: Req-2025-01086

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Liver

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings